Charlie Brown says that brothers and sisters can learn to get along. He says they can get along the way mature adults can get along. And he says that adults can get along the way nations get along.

At this point the analogy breaks down.

The failure of humanity to ‘get along’ ascends along the axis of size and maturity and resources.  Yet maybe the principle works in reverse as well and nations and adults must learn to get along the way children do.

If you have not read ‘The Gospel According to Peanuts’ I highly recommend it as a remarkably sophisticated and insightful exploration of theology via the Peanuts universe.  I have included a link to it in my Amazon Store.

Britten was comissioned to write the piece to dedicate Coventry Cathedral, which has been destroyed in World War II and was to be rebuilt. Britten, a pacifist, wrot the requiem, using the full Mass texts intersperced with poetry written by Wilfred Own, a soldier in WWI (who was killed a week before the end of the war). The consequent piece is the most dramatic and emotionally charged attacks on the institution of war in human society that I have ever encountered. Every poem underscores the absurdity of war and its ultimate futility. Britten artfully mixes the poetry in with the latin texts for an extremely powerful effect. Musically the piece is a spectacular modern, dissonant and atonal meandering structure. It is surprisingly listenable but yet still qiute profound. I particularly liked the part where the Dies Irae was introduced by the Trumpet and trombone sections playing horn calls that mimicked at the same time the bugle call of the cavalry and also the call of the Last Judgment. War is Hell. Literally.

I have never considered myself a pacifist. I do not like violence or condone it (outside of video games and movies of course ) but cannot categorically say that I am opposed to all violence at all times. I’m very torn on this position. In studying German history in my years studying German, I learned a lot about the evils that humanity is possible of achieving. WWI and WWII encompas both of these and in a sense are the dialectic of violence. World War I was the quo et demonstratem of pacifism.

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets and trenched there,
And streched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! and angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so,
but slew his son, -
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

The first world war war underscored the pointlessness of war in general. Why were these particular youths who had nothing against these other particular youths killing each other over disagreements that other unrelated leaders had with each other? It was all so pointless and evil. World War I I think represents the evil that humanity is capable of even when it is not trying to be evil.

World War II on the other hand represents what humanity can do when it does try to be evil, and I think it is the counterexample to the pacifist. The Allies were by no means saints going into save the Jews from the death camps, and many of their motivations and tactics were by no means honorable. Yet still, when you go to one of the concentration camps or study the history of Nazi germany you quickly come to the conclusion that this had to be stopped and by force.

Links:

• War Requiem Text
• Some Background on the Requiem

It is really amazing to watch his creations as they walk across the beaches of Holland. There is something delightfully eerie about them. They look like living skeletons of some crazy sort of machine and yet there is something peacful about the way that the wander along, powered only by the wind.

As one who works with technology on a regular basis, I really like his quote that the only difference between art and technology is in our minds. Why can not technology be considered beautiful and expressive the way art is. And why must art be limited to the traditional forms that it has held for the last millenia or so?

Obviously in order be really ‘art’ it needs to go beyond simply ‘looking cool.’ This is where I think Theo’s work really stands out. While he is a bit crazy (he talks about them coming alive in an interview on GoodExperience.com), there is something to them that forces us to look deeper at our own biological existence. The movement of the creatures captures a beauty in our own movements that is difficult to simply describe and that by its commonplace nature we hardly ever recognize. In this way it also pushes the boundries of
art, by (as must kinetic sculpture does) a sense of movement in non-staticness into the art. Particularly, it makes the movement itself the art form rather than the thing that does the moving.